|
Author
|
Topic: Spacewalkers on untethered Earth orbit EVAs
|
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3725
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 02-09-2024 07:40 PM
  
quote:
Originally posted by Axman:
And what I'm saying is yes, I agree.
I think we're in fierce agreement. It's a matter of that arbitrary limit. I would personally set it at one (at least) full independent orbit. |
Axman
Member Posts: 497
From: Derbyshire UK
Registered: Mar 2023
|
posted 02-10-2024 05:55 AM
Would that be a sidereal or solar orbit? 😉 |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3725
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 02-10-2024 12:28 PM
Errrrr.... |
Axman
Member Posts: 497
From: Derbyshire UK
Registered: Mar 2023
|
posted 02-11-2024 11:40 AM
This article says Bruce orbited the Earth... He got to about 320 feet (98 meters) from the spacecraft, becoming the first human to attempt a spacewalk without a safety tether. McCandless orbited Earth — as the first human satellite — for 1 hour, 22 minutes. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 3973
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 02-11-2024 12:43 PM
Here is an excerpt from the PAO transcripts as EVA #1 was concluding: This is Mission Control Houston 4 days, 4 hours, 40 minutes Mission Elapsed Time. We're about 2 minutes away from the Guam Station. The crew should be just about concluded with the EVA, this first check out of the Manned Manuevering Units and the other specialized EVA equipment. During the space walk Astronaut Bruce McCandless total time in the MMU was about 1-1/2 hours, we don't have an exact time, but approximately 1-1/2 hours for Bruce McCandless in the MMU. And Bob Stewart's total time in the MMU was slightly more than 1 hour, about an hour and 4 or 5 minutes. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3725
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 02-12-2024 05:58 PM
Those reports seem to confirm my memory of the event. Taking account of time attached to the shuttle it seems clear that McCandless didn't quite make a complete orbit untethered (whether or not you count time inside the cargo bay). Close, but no cigar. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1931
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 02-15-2024 04:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Axman:
...it is clear that Astronsutix regard them as satellites
Astronautix is not a relevant authority. Plus, I find it no better than Wikipedia when it comes to accuracy on spaceflight topics. |
Axman
Member Posts: 497
From: Derbyshire UK
Registered: Mar 2023
|
posted 02-16-2024 09:16 AM
Well, you have me baffled. How can you regard Bruce McCandless floating free in space on a MMU as not being an independent satellite? Which 'relevant' 'authority' do I need to consult to come to that opinion? |
Axman
Member Posts: 497
From: Derbyshire UK
Registered: Mar 2023
|
posted 04-05-2024 08:15 AM
I have just purchased the R.A.E. Table of Earth Satellites 1957-1982 along with its supplement The RAE Table of Earth Satellites 1983-1986.As mentioned in the introduction "Since 1957 the Royal Aircraft Establishment (Farnborough) has specialised in the analysis of satellite orbits...". I don't think there can be any doubt that the RAE Tables are respectable, thorough, peer reviewed, used by many scientists in both America and Russia including those employed by NASA, and are the acknowledged foundation of the COSPAR system in place today. They are neither a Wikipedia nor an Astronautix compilation in any shape or form. They have gravitas... Anyway on page 769 within the supplement, MMU1 is clearly and unambiguously listed as a satellite, catalogued as 1984-11. It is listed on a separate row below the rows for 1984-11A (STS-41B Challenger-F4, with SPAS-02 in cargo bay not separated); 1984-11B (Westar-6); 1984-11C (IRT); 1984-11D (Palapa-4 flight B-2); 1984-11E (Palapa-4 rocket PAM-D); and 1984-11F (Westar-6 rocket PAM-D). 1984-11 (MMU1 human + backpack), is listed above another separate row for 1984-11G-X (fragments) of which 14 had decayed by 1986. MMU2 also has data in a row beneath MMU1. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1931
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 04-07-2024 08:29 AM
But still not an official authority like UNOOSA. |
Axman
Member Posts: 497
From: Derbyshire UK
Registered: Mar 2023
|
posted 04-08-2024 04:01 AM
I'm unsure what you mean by stating the RAE is not an "official authority." UNOOSA itself only collates data submitted by representative organisations of treaty nations who are space-faring. One of those nations is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.The Royal Aircraft Establishment was a Department of the UK Government's Ministry of Defence. The Royal Aircraft Establishment is as equally "official" and an "authority" as NORAD is. And NORAD was the agency which the USA used to fulfill its obligations under the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space. So, insofar as UNOOSA runs the UN Register of outer space objects, they are merely compilations of various national registers. And the national registers are held by various organisations who use data supplied by other branches and departments of governments. One of those was the RAE. The RAE Tables and the UN Register serve two separate purposes, and as one is historic and superseded, and the other ongoing and evolving, they cannot be directly compared. So you are incorrect in your assertion that the RAE are not an official authority. I would love to correlate the RAE Tables with other listings but I am not aware that UNOOSA publishes satellite lists, "official and authorised" or otherwise. I have tried searching the online Register but I haven't the faintest idea how it is organised, and the search function is no help. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1931
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 04-13-2024 10:21 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Axman:
So you are incorrect in your assertion that the RAE are not an official authority.
It has no objects to register nor has launched anything. A spectator at best. |
Axman
Member Posts: 497
From: Derbyshire UK
Registered: Mar 2023
|
posted 04-13-2024 01:11 PM
Really! of course the RAE had objects to register: have a guess who registered the Black Arrow R3 Prospero satellite launched on 28/10/71. UNOOSA has no objects to register except through agencies such as The Royal Aircraft Establishment.And no, Prospero wasn't launched by the RAE but by a sister establishment of the UK Ministry of Defense. UNOOSA has never launched anything either. If the RAE is a spectator at best then UNOOSA is a second hand spectator at best. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 3973
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 04-26-2024 06:54 PM
I am guessing that Jeff Wisoff was always tethered to something during this part of the STS-57 EVA. Astronaut G. David Low (nearer camera), his feet anchored to Endeavour's Remote Manipulator System (RMS), lifts fellow astronaut Peter J.K. (Jeff) Wisoff during a special phase of the lengthy June 25, 1993, extravehicular activity (EVA). This phase of the EVA dealt with the simulation of handling large components in space.  |
LM-12
Member Posts: 3973
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 07-12-2024 08:48 AM
This STS-86 EVA photo shows where the HCM is stowed on the SAFER: Mission specialist Scott Parazynski prepares to test the hand controls on the Simplified Aid for EVA Rescue (SAFER) unit attached to his extravehicular mobility unit (EMU). The hand control can be seen in the open compartment in the corner of the SAFER.  |
advertisement